About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
was it, 1982 or 1983, back in the 1980's, tip o'neill and ronald reagan got together and made adjustments to social security that saved the program. that's my point. sometimes you need to adjust and change to save the very thing you care most about. and so tip o'neill didn't sell out the democratic party by embracing that agreement. the democrats in congress, many of them very progressive at that time who supported it, didn't work traders to the party. if we do it in a responsible way, a balanced and doesn't just gut the programs and just not all entitlement reform with no revenue, i think the base of the party and leaders and organized labor will understand. they also know the alternative is doing nothing, with bad damage to jobs and the economy. and ultimately insolvency of these programs themselves, or. b, the right wing of the republicans are coming in and taking over because we have done nothing to solve the problem and their answer to the solution would be much more draconian. host: jack. he's our first phone call for the senator. republican. go ahead. caller: mr. bayh, one question
's a kind of big confusion here because the classic republican economic vision and the ronald reagan vision and even the dynamic republican revolution vision that you were a part of was really centering on small business and the idea that small business is the idea that creates 75% of the country and it's this dynamic force. people fail, people succeed. things happen and small business is the engine of creation. and there was big business and small business. >> and of course the secret, something all republicans opp e oppose, someone uses regulation as a weapon against other businesses and gets things pass that had are helpful to their specific corporation but harmful to competitors whereas small businesses experience the ownerousness of regulation without a lot of the benefits. this is always a problem that the republican party became affiliated or associated. i think in some large senses wrongly with big business sense. helpful to the obama administration. signed on to obama care. what happened with two of the biggest corporations in the country. too broad of a stroke. we're against regu
examples of presidents who solved big problems by finding common ground with the other side. ronald reagan did it with a democratic-led house after a far more resounding second-term victory than president obama's, as did bill clinton, with a republican-controlled house and a republican-controlled senate after a more resounding second-term victory than president obama. both examples -- both of them -- illustrate the rare opportunity that divided government presents. president obama can follow suit or he can take the extremist view that both reagan and clinton rejected, by thumbing his nose at the other side and insisting that if republicans aren't willing to do things his way, he won't do anything at all. now, if the president's serious, he'll follow the leads of president reagan and clinton. if he's really serious, he'll put the campaign rhetoric aside, propose a realistic solution that can pass a republican-controlled house and a divided senate, and work to get it done. and if the president acts in this spirit, i have no doubt he'll have the support of his own party and a willing partner
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3